Democrats Think They're Winning. What If They're Playing the Wrong Game?

What if the primaries are setting up a trap Democrats are walking straight into—by treating this as a fair fight and ignoring the danger lurking behind the election curtain?

For the past decade, I believe bad actors have been putting a thumb on the scale of our elections to benefit Donald Trump—manipulating the numbers behind the scenes to predetermine who wins and who loses.

I’ve spent years researching, analyzing the data and unearthing the evidence that has led me to that conclusion.

In this post we’re going to use the real-life Florida primary results to step back, look at the chessboard—and see how Tuesday’s winners could set up bad actors to declare checkmate in November.

Before we go there, let me explain why this post is a little different.

For years, I’ve approached my election work as a journalist and researcher. I’ve examined millions of voter records, published the underlying evidence I’ve found and explained how I reached my conclusions.

And years of doing that work have led me to believe something even bigger: The elections aren’t the end goal. They’re Step 1.

Gaining control of government—and the enormous power that comes with it—is the prize.

That’s why I don’t believe we can solve the problem of who controls our elections without confronting the larger conspiracy surrounding them. But the reverse is also true: I don’t believe we can regain control of our government until we’re willing to confront what’s happening in our elections.

That’s what my work focuses on.

And here’s one way you can help. Candidates raise millions to win their races. I’m trying to help make sure they’re running on a level playing field in the first place.

If you want to help fund that work—or volunteer to be part of it—you can do that at

ItsUptoUs.GrassrootsSpeak.com

In the meantime, let’s unpack why I believe the primaries may be a key step in setting the stage for bad actors to keep control in November.

When I say that I believe bad actors have been rigging our elections for the past decade, that isn’t an opinion I arrived at casually. I’ve personally spent years developing the body of research and data that led me to that conclusion. I’ve published a lot of it on this website—but not all of it. And much of what I have published includes details I haven’t seen reported elsewhere.

If you don't accept my premise, that's okay. But before you dismiss it out of hand, please look at the evidence I've already published before deciding for yourself. I recommend starting with my post Is Russian Malware Still in Our Registration Systems? You can also find all of my election research here.

That research starts to lay out the evidence that has influenced my opinions. But this particular post is different. For once, I’m not writing simply as a journalist presenting evidence. I’m writing as Alison Greene—the person who has spent years immersed in this data—telling you what I think the recent Florida primary results may mean strategically.

And what I think is this: The primaries may have been a critical move intended to help get the bad actors sell a possible checkmate in November.

Election results are not meant to be preordained. They’re supposed to represent the will of the people. But based on my research, I believe they can instead represent the will of bad actors.

We can no longer look at the world simply as it is supposed to be. We have to look at what is actually happening.

Not many of us believe Trump is capable of playing chess. But I consider him a puppet anyway. He may appear to be making the moves, but what if those behind him are telling him every move to make?

And that leads me to wonder: Are the people behind Trump playing chess while we’re spending all our time and energy trying to win a game of checkers?

A lot of people have contacted me since the recent Florida primaries asking if I watched them. And let me tell you—I didn’t have to be glued to the various news channels to see what was going on. In fact, I didn’t even watch the primaries. Because to me, the television coverage is a distraction.

There are two different levels from which you can watch something:

• Strategically, from above.

or

• In the weeds.

Personally, I try to do both.

So many people use the phrase, “Watch what they do, not what they say.” Sitting there and determining the state of the world by listening to somebody at a news desk—or a whiteboard—spouting numbers and opinions is neither.

So, let’s look at Florida. And while I’m using Florida to show you what I mean, don’t mistake this for a Florida problem. My research has led me to believe this is happening all over the country. But today, using Florida as an example let’s look at the primaries through both lenses.

First, in the weeds.

There continues to be evidence every day of what I wrote about in Post 6, Florida’s Two Sets of Books. I’m not going to rehash all of that evidence here. That’s not what this post is about.

I’ve spent years publishing the records and explaining why they have led me to conclude that the numbers being presented to us as election results cannot simply be taken at face value. If you want to understand how I arrived at that conclusion, go back through my research and decide for yourself. But I can assure you that every day I continue to see evidence in the weeds that Florida’s elections are being manipulated in the lead up to midterms.

So, let’s move on to the second lens. Today, I want to step back and look at the chessboard from above.

Let’s take the Senate as an example.

Ashley Moody.

She was never elected to the Senate. Ron DeSantis appointed her to fill Marco Rubio's seat after Trump promoted Rubio to Secretary of State. She wasn’t put there by the will of Florida voters.

I can’t tell you that I personally know or care much about Ashley Moody. And that’s kind of the point I’ll make about her. I personally don’t think many people know or care much about Ashley Moody. What Ashley Moody represents is a Senate seat Republicans need to keep. One of 100 seats.

In fact, there isn’t much of a path to Republicans retaining the Senate without winning races like this one. Florida is supposed to be a given. If Republicans lose the Florida seat, it could tip the scales in a way that would be earth-shattering.

Because if Republicans lose the Senate, Trump is screwed. Figuratively, literally, every which way.

Same with the House … but for now let’s look at the Senate. Now here’s the issue.

In my humble opinion, Ashley Moody isn’t a particularly strong candidate. She doesn’t have enormous national name recognition. She hasn’t done anything that I can see to create some huge groundswell of enthusiasm around her. She’s just there. I certainly wouldn’t put my money on her in a fair fight.

But who says we have a fair fight?

Alex Vindman would have presented a very particular kind of opponent. A whistleblower against Trump. An Army veteran. Someone who stood up on behalf of Ukraine. A recognizable national story and, in my opinion, a strong résumé for running against a Trump-endorsed Republican.

He was the kind of candidate establishment Democrats were betting could get a tick in the box from Democrats, independents and even Republicans who aren’t on the Trump train. In other words, the kind of candidate who looked capable of beating Ashley Moody—and beating her convincingly.

And if Ashley Moody beat Alex Vindman under circumstances that didn’t make sense, I think a lot of people would immediately say:

There is no ‘effin way Vindman lost to Ashley Moody.

But Alex Vindman didn’t win the primary. Angie Nixon did.

And I want to be extremely clear about something before I go any further:

Nothing I’m saying here is intended to diminish Angie Nixon, her candidacy or the legitimacy of the people who voted for her.

Her victory absolutely could be exactly what it appears to be: voters rejecting politics as usual, frustration with the establishment, enthusiasm for a more progressive candidate, an effective ground game—or simply more Floridians wanting Angie Nixon to represent them.

I don’t know that this primary was manipulated. I’m not claiming that it was. What I am saying is that after everything I have uncovered about our election systems, I would be foolish not to step back and consider another possibility too.

Because I'm looking at the bigger picture. I'm taking into consideration everything my research has taught me about election manipulation and trying to put myself in the shoes of the bad actors. What does their chessboard look like—and what moves might they be making now to set themselves up for November?

If people intending to manipulate the November election believed Ashley Moody would have difficulty beating Alex Vindman, what matchup would give them a more plausible narrative if Moody were ultimately declared the winner?

And that’s where Angie Nixon’s victory becomes strategically concerning to me. Not because Nixon is a bad candidate. Because she isn’t. Angie Nixon seems to me to be a great candidate who is incredibly qualified.

But the reality is that our politics have become extraordinarily good at using ideology, race and gender to divide us—and then using those divisions to explain away virtually any political outcome.

Imagine November.

Suppose the numbers say Ashley Moody won. Instead of everyone asking, How did Ashley Moody win?, there are already a dozen other stories being thrown at us.

The Democratic establishment didn’t support Nixon enough.

Progressives pushed the party too far left.

Democratic Socialists cost Democrats the Senate.

Florida wasn’t ready to elect a progressive Black woman.

Did you really believe Florida would turn blue?

Nixon alienated Florida Democrats over her position on Israel.

The party was divided.

Pick your narrative.

And suddenly everybody is fighting about why Angie Nixon lost instead of asking the much more fundamental question we should be asking if that is the result we’re given in November: Did Ashley Moody actually win?

That’s the distinction I’m making.

If bad actors intend to create a predetermined outcome in November, the question becomes: would they leave the primaries to chance—or would they try to influence the matchup that gives them the best opportunity to explain away the result come November?

I’m not predicting which narrative anyone will use. I’m saying that race, gender and ideological divisions provide ready-made narratives to justify an election result—and those explanations can become a distraction from examining whether the underlying numbers themselves make sense.

Jack Smith made a point in his closed-door testimony that has stuck with me.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal asked him what happens if there is election interference and the people responsible are not held accountable.

Smith’s answer was chillingly simple:

“It becomes the new norm, and that becomes how we -- how we conduct elections.”

My research has led me to believe that election manipulation goes back to before the 2016 election. So, I find myself asking a different question:

Has rationalizing away questionable election results through political narratives become part of that new norm—while examining the underlying data and demanding meaningful audits has somehow become the thing we’re discouraged from doing?

That’s why I don’t believe we can look at the primaries only as isolated races that happened in August. I’m looking at them as potential chess moves leading to a surprising November result that does not accurately reflect the will of the people.

And that’s also why I’m not interested in sitting here today and declaring that Angie Nixon’s primary victory was manufactured.

I don’t have evidence that establishes that.

What I do have is years of research that has led me to believe manipulation of our election data is happening in the here and now—and that we need to address the possibility of manipulation intended to affect the outcome in November.

So, whether or not Angie Nixon had a completely free and fair primary in August is ultimately less important to me than making damn sure she gets a fair fight in November.

And that distinction matters.

This post isn’t really about looking backward and trying to prove what happened in the primaries.

It’s about looking forward.

If my research is right, we don’t have the luxury of waiting until November, being given the results and then trying to figure out what happened.

We have to address the vulnerabilities now—before the votes are cast and counted.

Because after all, on August 27, 2024, Donald Trump was indicted on a charge of conspiring against Americans’ right “to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.”

So, when Trump puts his endorsement behind a candidate, should we simply look at that as an endorsement—or should we also be paying very close attention to the vote count that ultimately decides if his endorsed candidates are declared the winners?

Whatever I may personally think of Ashley Moody, she should be taking part in a fair election.

And Angie Nixon absolutely deserves a fair election.

That should be a bipartisan issue.

And Florida voters deserve to know that whoever wins in November actually won because that’s who Florida voters chose.

That’s the whole point.

So, rather than spending the next three months trying to prove what happened in one primary, I want to do something much more useful.

Let’s make the question irrelevant.

Let’s make the November election so transparent, so verifiable and so closely scrutinized that we don’t have to wonder afterward whether Angie Nixon—or Ashley Moody—really won.

My dream is that over the next few months we identify every Ghost Voter we possibly can—and every real voter who is being improperly deleted.

We fight to get legitimate voters back onto the rolls so their votes can be counted.

We demand that illegitimate registrations be removed so nobody can use them to cast votes for any candidate.

I don’t care whether that candidate is Ashley Moody, Angie Nixon or anyone else.

Because I will tell you this:

I think Angie Nixon can win this race in a fair fight.

So, let’s make damn sure she gets one.

Between now and November, that’s where I’m focusing my energy.

And here’s something else I want you to think about.

Everyone understands that candidates need money to win elections. They need money for advertising, staff, field operations and getting out the vote.

But who is funding the work to make sure they actually get a fair fight?

You can donate to your candidate. You should donate to your candidate.

But please also consider supporting those of us doing the work to protect the playing field they’re running on.

Because a candidate can raise millions of dollars. They can knock on every door. They can persuade the voters. They can run the perfect campaign.

But none of that matters if legitimate voters disappear from the rolls, Ghost Voters are added to them, or legitimate votes aren’t counted.

That’s the work I’m doing.

Obtaining the voter records. Maintaining and analyzing the database. Identifying the anomalies. Finding the Ghost Voters. And identifying real voters who may be disappearing from the rolls before November.

So, if you’re donating to help your candidate win, I’m asking you to consider also making a contribution to help make sure they get the fair fight you’re paying them to win.

Fund the candidate you believe in. But please also help fund the fight for a level playing field. To donate to It’s Up to Us you can now go to our website at:

ItsUptoUs.GrassrootsSpeak.com

Or you can become a paying subscriber on Substack to help fund our fight.

And between now and November, let’s focus on our ground game.

Candidates will be knocking on doors trying to find voters.

We can also do the work to make sure the voters on the rolls are real—and that the real voters who belong on those rolls haven’t disappeared.

There are things we can do now to help level the playing field.

Protect the real voters.

Identify and remove the Ghost Voters.

And then let Floridians decide who wins.

Because if our elections are being manipulated to put Trump and his allies in power, we can't stop the abuse of all that power without stopping the manipulation that puts them there in the first place.

If I’m right, bad actors are already thinking several moves ahead.

The primary isn’t the endgame. November is.

So let’s make sure the voters—not the people trying to manipulate their votes—are the ones who decide how this game ends.

Because once we see the game being played, we don't have to let them win it.

Hands off our real votes.